MovieChat Forums > Friends with Benefits (2011) Discussion > Why were they talking so fast?

Why were they talking so fast?

posted 12 years ago by savagesteve13
10 replies | jump to latest

It felt like a David Mamet play, everybody's talking 100mph.

The movie sucked, terribly, hard and long.

[–] tingkagol 12 years ago

It's director Will Gluck's style (see also Easy A). Not realistic, but it gives the dialogue a bit of cleverness.

[–] satan44 12 years ago

Interesting. I thought it destroyed any cleverness, wit or chemistry the script might have had.

[–] lauragianno 12 years ago

Errr...because that's how some people actually do talk. Some friends and I talk just as fast. Depends on the people...some talk slower...obviously

[–] rianty-wahab 12 years ago

Yeah, I agree with you! "A bit of cleverness" here, means the scriptwriter is clever, witty, that way he made interesting lines/dialogue. But as a movie it is unrealistic, because it seems EVERY character has the writer's mind and same talking style. In reality, people talk with different paces, different kind of jokes.. often stop and think and uh eh when they are talk. In here they all are basically the same person.

[–] Princess_Ashmi 12 years ago

lol I thought that too, was like watching Gilmore Girls

Ashmi any question

[–] richopp 12 years ago

Most of these are reminders of the '30s and '40s romantic comedies that starred people like Cary Grant and so forth. These were great films that I realize younger people have not seen but which set the tone and dialog cadence for some modern romantic comedies of today. I don't blame them for copying good stuff, and I would like to suggest that younger posters view a LOT of older films to learn where most of what they see today came from.

Naturally, this does not pertain to blowing up everything in site and blood shooting out of every orfice of every "character" every 5 seconds. THAT stuff is new, as are sometimes excellent CGI and much better sound. Of course, dialog is not really anyone's focus on most films today because making huge amounts of money is really the only goal. If you really like film, watch a bunch of older ones as well as the newer ones. You could start to appreciate what you see today a lot more. Or not.

Cheers!

[–] satan44 12 years ago

The difference being, that actors like Cary Grant had the delivery, presence and chemistry that made it work. Timberlake and Kunis doesn´t.

I´m well aware of old movies like Double Indemnity and Spellbound, whose dialogue isn´t realistic, but works, through great overall script and actors. This movie was *beep*

[–] changedname 12 years ago

Your opinion is what's ****. This movie was awesome. And they were talking how people normally talk and how is normal in movies and on tv - sure it's scripted, just like every other movie in existence derp. If you want to see a movie with more tripping over itself dialogue try Blue Valentine *snore*.

[–] richopp 12 years ago

I wouldn't be so hard on that comment. The poster is familiar with the early romantic comedies, so understands the pace of the dialog. I kind of agree that the two of them don't match Grant and Hepburn, etc., and the funny films of those days, but I don't fault the writers for trying to get that genre going again. There aren't many people around who can act at that level. Hanks and Ryan kind of did it in their two movies, but it really is kind of a lost art form and, of course, films today have to make a billion, have either lots of naked people doint it or something blowing up every 2 minutes to make that money, so studios are kind of stuck with stockholders who buy art at auctions with the billions they make from the schlock they have to release. If we get one good film a year we are lucky, and most actresses will drop their clothes in a second for a job, so we get what sells, not what is good. Check out your local theater group for some decent stuff if they have any. Otherwise, just rent the old stuff, I guess.

Cheers!

Rich

[–] changedname 12 years ago

The nudity and sex in this movie is natural and to be expected however, certainly not gratuitous. I read an article recently saying that hollywood isn't interested in sex so much anymore, because there are no more boundaries to push that haven't been pushed already and because the instantly available hardcore porn of the internet age takes the edge off of it. It claims that objectively the amount of sex in movies has gone down significantly since the 90s.